Hi Matthew
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 12:58 PM Matthew Wilcox willy@infradead.org wrote:
Can you send this as a separate patch, preferably as an RFC so we can ensure that we all agree on how mseal() should behave?
It is not an RFC because it doesn't change any semanic to mseal. The updated test will pass on linux main as well as 6.10. The increased coverage will help to prevent future regression, i.e. during refactoring.
You seem to not understand that there is disagreement on the semantics of mseal(). I mean, ther's been a lot of arguing about that over the last week. There's understanable reluctance to accept a large pile of tests saying "this just ensures that mseal behaves the way I think it should", when there is substantial disagreement that the way you think it should behave is in fact the way it should behave. Be prepared to argue for each semantic that you think it should have.
If this is about in-loop discussion, this patch also passes the latest mm-unstable branch which has in-loop change (pending Liam's fix on mmap). The increased test coverage also helps to ensure the in-loop change's correctness on sealing.
I'm not aware there are other semantic changes on mseal, we can continue this discussion on V2 patch, if necessary.
Thanks -Jeff